No way. I am totally with the British way. The Scandivanian way somehow takes out the magic of titles. Everyone is either Prince or Princess. When they say Crown Princess we dont know whether she is heiress or heir's wife.
British way is real royal. Just the full style with title perfectly gives you the entire information about the marital+birth+precedence status of that person.
Naturally some may feel it difficult to understand but once you follow closely for a few days, you will get used to it very well, no rocket science.
I love the British way of giving each and every person a distinct title instead of calling everone Prince/ess..
And of course distinction is perfectly acceptable between Princesses of birth and marriage..
Come on, once we are into royalty, we cant talk too much of 'equality', right?

And Rebafan81, not being styled "Princess Catherine" is not going to diminish her in any way.
And as far as William being Crown Prince, forgive me, I feel the title Crown Prince (that too since used commonly and collectively) can never be as regal as Prince of Wales. Maybe that is totally personal..lol

I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.

What do you mean by "becomes the Crowned Prince"? There is no such thing as a "Crowned Prince" in the BRF. The next step up for William is becoming the Prince of Wales, but that's not what you're thinking of, I don't think.

__________________

__________________"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "

Ya but again, Prince of Wales is more practical and widely used title, than Duke of Cornwall, though not automatic as the latter.
But I still find Prince of Wales more glamorous and regal than both Duke of Cornwall and Crown Prince.

I was just pointing out that the moment Charles becomes King, William will automatically be the Duke of Cornwall (the next step), whereas he'll need to be created The Prince of Wales at some point. It is possible William will be Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge for at least a couple of years before he becomes the Prince of Wales.

I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.

Except that the Scandinavian princesses who married into the royal families are still not princesses in their own right. I used to think they were but it was pointed out to me here some time ago that they are not. As far as I know only Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was created a princess of the Netherlands in her own right upon marriage.

__________________
Avatar: King Faisal of Saudi Arabia(while a prince) as a teenager shortly before his first marriage(I know, I know, he's so young).

Except that the Scandinavian princesses who married into the royal families are still not princesses in their own right. I used to think they were but it was pointed out to me here some time ago that they are not. As far as I know only Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was created a princess of the Netherlands in her own right upon marriage.

You are right, none of the wives of the Scandinavian Heirs to the Throne are Princesses in their own right. For instance, Mary's proper title is not "Crown Princess" Mary but May, Crown Princess of Denmark.

Apart from Maxima, Stephanie of Luxembourg and Mathilde of Belgium were also created Princesses in their own right of their respective countries. Thus, Stephanie is Princess Stephanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and Mathilde is Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant.

The tradition of creating the wife of the heir to the throne a Princess of the realm in her own right (albeit for the duration of the marriage) appears to be limited to Benelux countries only.

Apart from Maxima, Stephanie of Luxembourg and Mathilde of Belgium were also created Princesses in their own right of their respective countries. Thus, Stephanie is Princess Stephanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and Mathilde is Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant.

.

I forgot about Mathilde and didn't know about Stephanie. I remember now that Mathilde's family was also elevated to the rank of counts upon her marriage.

__________________
Avatar: King Faisal of Saudi Arabia(while a prince) as a teenager shortly before his first marriage(I know, I know, he's so young).

I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?

I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.

The Earl and Countess from way back on their wedding day said their children would be style the way they are. The Queen did this for Wills child because with the current laws only the male line children of the monarch and the male son of the Prince of Wales and the grandson of the POW would be styled Prince. If wills has a daughter she would be Lady Cambridge and a future Queen so she Made sure this future Queen would be a Princess.

Yeah, I think William's future Investiture ceremony as The Prince of Wales will take sometime to plan out. I'm thinking maybe a year or two after Charles's Coronation.

There is no need for an investiture in order for William to become Prince of Wales. Only Charles and Edward VIII have been publicly invested in recent centuries, or maybe at all.

Most have just been created PoW shortly after birth, shortly after their parent became monarch or in the case of George III shortly after his father's death.

Elizabeth took the longest time to create Charles PoW - he became Duke of Cornwall in the early hours of the 6th February 1952 but he wasn't created Prince of Wales for over 6 years.

Edward VII took nearly 11 months before creating George V PoW. For most of 1901 George was known as The Duke of Cornwall and York and holding those combined titles officially opened Australia's first parliament in Melbourne (we had become a federation on 1st January 1901).

George V created Edward VIII PoW 6 weeks after his accession as King. His investiture took place the same year as the coronation only three weeks after the coronation of his father. George V's was crowned on the 22nd June and Edward was invested on 13th July.

I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?

I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.

Edward and Sophie wanted their children styled as the children of an earl, so they are. They are legally Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex, which when they're 18, they can assume as their rightful titles if they so choose. Nothing was denied to their children, nothing was stripped from them. There was no intentional slight of the Wessex couple on behalf of the Queen. Don't look for something that doesn't exist.

HM issued Letters Patent in regards to the Cambridge's future child because regardless of the child's gender, they will be the future monarch. As a result of the Letters Patent from her grandfather in 1917, only a son would be guaranteed a princely title, as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. A daughter would be merely Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor. Without new Letters Patent granting a princely status to the child regardless of gender, the future queen would be born without a title. It's no different than what George VI did for the-then Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. If he hadn't issued Letters Patent granting their children a princely status, as grandchildren in the female line do not carry titles, Charles would have been born Lord Charles Mountbatten, instead of HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh. So there's precedent for elevating a child's status befitting their future role, when they otherwise would not be entitled to it.

__________________"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "

Apart from Maxima, Stephanie of Luxembourg and Mathilde of Belgium were also created Princesses in their own right of their respective countries. Thus, Stephanie is Princess Stephanie, Hereditary Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and Mathilde is Princess Mathilde, Duchess of Brabant.

Personally, totally my own opinion, i feel if they do the job, they deserve being called Princess Sophie (or whomever).

Just as i feel if someone is made a knight, such as Sir Paul Holmes (in my own country), then his wife should be just Mrs, as she did not do anything to deserve it.

(This would solve that really annoying - to me - habit of the NZ press to call anyone who's the wife of a knight, Lady Firstname Surname. E.g. Lady Deborah Holmes, when it should be just Lady Holmes.) Just a personal bugbear of mine; it's so easy to get it right.

Edward and Sophie wanted their children styled as the children of an earl, so they are. They are legally Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex, which when they're 18, they can assume as their rightful titles if they so choose.

I expect that when their parents become DUke and DUchess of Edinburgh, then Lady Louise will retain that style, and Viscount Severn will become Earl of Wessex. I think that would be correct.

I expect that when their parents become DUke and DUchess of Edinburgh, then Lady Louise will retain that style, and Viscount Severn will become Earl of Wessex. I think that would be correct.

If they wanted to, they could assume their princely titles and become Princess Louise of Edinburgh and Prince James of Edinburgh. Though it's unlikely that they would, as they've lived their entire lives without them, but it would be within their rights. Once Edward assumes his father's dukedom, James would become Lord Merioneth, as the heir to that ducal title.

__________________"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "

If they wanted to, they could assume their princely titles and become Princess Louise of Edinburgh and Prince James of Edinburgh. Though it's unlikely that they would, as they've lived their entire lives without them, but it would be within their rights. Once Edward assumes his father's dukedom, James would become Lord Merioneth, as the heir to that ducal title.

Edward will not succeed to the Edinburgh dukedom. On the passing of the duke Charles succeeds. On His accession to the throne the Edinburgh title merges with the Crown. It is up to Charles to then create his brother Duke of Edinburgh. Viscount Severn will then start to use his fathers secondary title, Earl of Wessex/

Edward will not succeed to the Edinburgh dukedom. On the passing of the duke Charles succeeds. On His accession to the throne the Edinburgh title merges with the Crown. It is up to Charles to then create his brother Duke of Edinburgh. Viscount Severn will then start to use his fathers secondary title, Earl of Wessex/

You are correct in the normal course of events but...there are scenarios where the title doesn't merge with the Crown e.g. William's child is a girl and both Charles and William predecease Philip (unlikely but...) then the girl becomes Queen and Harry Duke of Edinburgh.

There are many scenarios still in play for the Edinburgh title - the most likely is that it will merge with the Crown at some time through Charles but that isn't a given.

We are also assuming that Charles will honour the announcement made in 1999 (and I have no doubt that he will) but what about William - will he honour that announcement??? - I am no so sure about him.

A few months ago I was somewhat confused on the official title & style of a wife of a British prince. I referenced The Queen's late aunt, Prince Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, who requested permission from the Queen to style herself as Princess Alice. As before, I read that Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone hated the fact of two Princess Alice's in the Royal Family. She felt that the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester should have been styled HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester. Plenty on this forum said that wasn't the correct style for a widow who was the wife of a peer-- and that it was incorrect for her to be styled as The Princess Henry.

I was scanning the British Monarchy website & came across something very odd concerning The Countess of Wessex. In the Styles & Titles section of her page, it says

The Countess of Wessex can also be known as Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex.

Why is that odd? That's her title.
Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward Antony Richard Louis, Countess of Wessex, Viscountess Severn, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Dame of Justice of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem

A few months ago I was somewhat confused on the official title & style of a wife of a British prince. I referenced The Queen's late aunt, Prince Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, who requested permission from the Queen to style herself as Princess Alice. As before, I read that Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone hated the fact of two Princess Alice's in the Royal Family. She felt that the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester should have been styled HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester. Plenty on this forum said that wasn't the correct style for a widow who was the wife of a peer-- and that it was incorrect for her to be styled as The Princess Henry.

I was scanning the British Monarchy website & came across something very odd concerning The Countess of Wessex. In the Styles & Titles section of her page, it says

The Countess of Wessex can also be known as Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex.

In regards to Princess Alice's title, she was The Duchess of Gloucester until her husband was alive. Once he died, she should have become The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, while her son's wife was The Duchess of Gloucester. However, Alice reportedly hated being called Dowager Duchess so she requested the Queen to be known as Princess Alice although usually only Princesses by birth can prefix the title to their names. The request was granted and from 1974 until her death in 2004, her title was Her Royal Highness Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.

The Countess of Wessex is indeed a Princess of the United Kingdom - Princess by marriage. Because she isn't a Princess in her own right, Sophie can't prefix the title to her name (Princess Sophie) so is instead known under her husband's styles and titles - The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex. In the same way, Camilla is The Princess Charles, Kate is Princess William, Birgitte is Princess Richard, Katharine is Princess Edward, Marie Christine is Princess Michael.

All of these ladies are known under their husband's peerage titles (Countess of Wessex, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Gloucester, etcetera) because a person usually uses his/her highest available title - and peerage titles take precedence over those of "mere" Princes and Princesses of the United King. Thus, the Earl of Wessex is actually higher than just Prince Edward and consequently, the Countess of Wessex is higher than Princess Edward. If Prince William hadn't been created the Duke of Cambridge before his marriage, his wife would have been known as Princess William.